Fairly Exposed: A Proposal to Improve the Reasonableness Standardfor Digital Forensic Searches at the Border
Author | Caroline V. McCaffrey |
Position | J.D./D.C.L. candidate 2020, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University |
Pages | 203-248 |
Louisiana Law Review Louisiana Law Review
Volume 80
Number 1
Fall 2019
Article 12
3-3-2020
Fairly Exposed: A Proposal to Improve the Reasonableness Fairly Exposed: A Proposal to Improve the Reasonableness
Standardfor Digital Forensic Searches at the Border Standardfor Digital Forensic Searches at the Border
Caroline V. McCaffrey
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev
Part of the Law Commons
Repository Citation Repository Citation
Caroline V. McCaffrey,
Fairly Exposed: A Proposal to Improve the Reasonableness Standardfor Digital
Forensic Searches at the Border
, 80 La. L. Rev. (2020)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol80/iss1/12
This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital
Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital
Commons. For more information, please contact kreed25@lsu.edu.
337366-LSU_80-1_Text.indd 207 11/27/19 9:28 AM
Fairly Exposed: A Proposal to Improve the
Reasonableness Standard for Digital Forensic
Searches at the Border
Caroline V. McCaffrey*
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction.................................................................................. 202
I. The Nuts and Bolts of Digital Forensic Searches......................... 207
A. The Border Search Exception to the Fourth Amendment...... 209
B. Categories of Searches at the Border..................................... 211
1. Routine versus Non-Routine Searches at the Border ...... 211
2. Manual versus Forensic Searches at the Border.............. 212
II. The Circuit Split ...........................................................................214
A. Forensic Searches of Electronic Devices at the
Border Require Reasonable Suspicion .................................. 214
1. The Ninth Circuit’s Perspective:
United States v. Cotterman.............................................. 215
2. The Fourth Circuit’s Perspective:
United States v. Kolsuz.................................................... 216
B. Forensic Searches of Electronic Devices at the
Border Do Not Require Reasonable Suspicion...................... 218
III. Factors Contributing to the Reasonableness of Digital
Forensic Searches......................................................................... 219
A. Factors Contributing to the Reasonable
Duration of a Forensic Search ............................................... 219
1. Well-Established Precedent on the Reasonable
Duration of Border Searches........................................... 221
2. The Circuit Split’s Impact on Forensic Search
Durations......................................................................... 223
B. Factors Contributing to Reasonable Procedures
for Forensic Searches............................................................. 226
C. Public Safety and Reasonable Forensic Searches.................. 231
Copyright 2019, by CAROLINE V. MCCAFFREY.
* J.D./D.C.L. candidate 2020, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State
University. I would like to thank Professor Raff Donelson and the Louisiana Law
Review Volume 79 Board for assisting me with the writing process.
337366-LSU_80-1_Text.indd 208 11/27/19 9:28 AM
202 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 80
1. Clarifying the Meaning of “Reasonable Suspicion”
in the Public Safety Context............................................ 233
2. The Circuit Split’s Impact on Public Safety.................... 234
D. Policy Considerations ............................................................ 235
1. The Circuit Split’s Impact on Equal Protection .............. 235
2. The Circuit Split’s Impact on CBP Resource
Optimization.................................................................... 237
IV. Clearly Defining Reasonable Digital Forensic Searches.............. 239
A. Duration................................................................................. 240
B. Procedure ...............................................................................242
C. Harms at Stake....................................................................... 244
Conclusion.................................................................................... 245
INTRODUCTION
In July 2017, Ghassan and Nadia Alasaad, two law-abiding American
citizens, traveled to Québec on a family vacation.1 After spending three
weeks in Canada, the Alasaads and their daughters boarded a plane to
return to their home in Massachusetts.2 While crossing the border from
Canada to Vermont, a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent
informed the Alasaad family that they were being detained because the
agent “simply felt like ordering a secondary inspection.”3 Subsequently,
the agent escorted the Alasaad family to an inspection room and
confiscated their smartphones.4
After the Alasaads waited for hours in the inspection room, the agent
ordered Mrs. Alasaad to provide the passcode to her smartphone.5 Mrs.
Alasaad refused to comply with the agent’s demand and requested that a
female agent conduct the search.6 The agent informed the Alasaads that a
female agent would not be available to search the phone for hours.7 Unable
1. Alasaad v. Nielson, No. 17-CV-11730-DJC, 2018 WL 2170323, at *5 (D.
Mass. May 19, 2018).
2. Id.
3. Id.
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. Mrs. Alasaad’s smartphone contained photos of her without her
headscarf. It is against Mrs. Alasaad’s religious beliefs to allow men to view those
images. Id.
7. Id.
To continue reading
Request your trial